For several decades, remote viewing has been studied with success and it is a psychic phenomenon that has considerable research behind it. The first response to evidence that challenges an existing paradigm, is to deny it. We accuse those who promote remote viewing of fraud and convince ourselves that remote viewing cannot exist. Humans have a history of not accepting ideas until they are forced to, usually when their survival depends on it. As evidence accumulates, we will reach a point where the results cannot be ignored. One such example is scientist Galileo. His invention of the telescope allowed him to collect evidence that Earth and all the other planets revolved around the sun. Most people during that time believed that Earth was the center of the universe and he was imprisoned to keep him from spreading other “crazy” ideas. He was outcast for his revolutionary ideas because the concept he proposed simply did not fit people’s worldview. The future is very promising for remote viewing if we can only stretch our current paradigm to fit its existence.
Psi can be learned. It is something we can tap into in our consciousness and be trained, like a muscle, to work for us. During the Stanford research, the government sponsors were looking for a control subject, a normal person who wasn’t a born psychic. A photographer with no previous psi experience named Hella Hammid was chosen. Head researcher Russell Targ said that when she left the program almost a decade later, she was one of their most reliable remote viewers (Targ, 2012). Can everybody learn remote viewing? Russell Targ certainly believes so. During Hella’s nine trials of viewing distant geographical targets, she achieved statistical significance of almost one in a million that her impressions could have occurred by chance (Targ, 2012). Doesn’t this mean something? Joe McMoneagle, one of the most successful government remote viewers wrote a book called “Remote Viewing Secrets: A Handbook.” In this book he teaches readers how to remote view themselves. He says that good remote views possess a mixture of one third of desire and focus, one third quality and intensity training, and one third natural talent” (McMoneagle, 2000). To him, the most important thing a student must learn to do remote viewing is to understand “zen” (McMoneagle, 2000). Zen is important because remote viewing is all about tapping into a greater unconscious that we are not often aware of. There is a lot more to reality than our five senses tell us. Consciousness extends beyond the very nature of physical time and space. Remote viewing is all about learning how to quiet your mind. Psychologist and remote viewer Keith Harary says in order to remote view, he had to “learn how to separate his own thoughts, what he calls, ‘mental noise’ from impressions, feelings and images related to the subject or target. After you get yourself out of the way, you can peel away all of that and there’s another later and that is the perceptive layer” (Guthrie, 1995). According to these trained remote viewers, this is a skill that can be acquired by tapping into something we have beneath the surface we can work to strengthen.
If all the statistical evidence isn’t enough for you, it says a lot that the government funded research on remote viewing for over two decades. Recently unclassified, the Stanford Research Institute was conducting studies to determine whether phenomena such as remote viewing might have any utility for intelligence collection” (Puthoff, 1996). The research began with a man named Ingo Swann who showed researchers at Stanford his amazing abilities of being able to remote view. As more work was done, protocols were expanded and viewers were testing their limits; progress. In their second year of the program, the CIA sponsor decided to challenge the team to provide data on a Soviet site of ongoing operational significance (Puthoff, 1996). Remote viewer Pat Price and the team came up with a very thoughtful and intricate experiment to minimize any “cueing” of the target site, while still keeping in mind the Soviet site on which intelligence was needed (Puthoff, 1996). Were the results not promising, the experiment would have ended but Price drew a multisensory crane and an attempt at a building layout, both of which were accurate on the target site when it was finally seen. The SRI team experienced much success over the two decades and although funding ceased, it was quite a success. While I understand this information is from very trained remote viewers, their controlled experiments produced significant results. Additionally, the US government funded NASA, which, in time, was able to get man to the moon. In order for the government to commit so much funding, there must have been some pretty compelling evidence.
I understand your concern, but when you really think about it, what human capabilities are perfectly replicable on demand? For example, even the best hitter is major league baseball cannot hit on demand. That why there are batting averages. Nor can we predict when they will hit a homerun. It’s rare for players to consistently hit home runs. In fact, we cannot even predict whether or not a home run will occur in a given baseball game, but that doesn’t mean home runs do not exist (Utts, 1995). If there really truly is an effect, it may not ever be replicable on demand in the short term even if we understand how it works, i.e. a batter may not hit one home run in this game or the next, but over his career he may have several. Similarly, in the long run, in well-controlled laboratory experiments, we should see a consistent level of functioning that is above chance. There are many labs that have replicated remote viewing experiments, by various experimenters and in different cultures (Utts, 1995). With such strong results, were it not such an unusual field, we would no longer question as a real phenomenon. It is highly unlikely that methodological problems could account for the consistency of the results because the various experiments have been different enough that there would have to be a different explanation for each type of experiment (Utts, 1995). It would take a considerable amount of fraud on the part of a large number of experimenters and subjects for the results of remote viewing experiments to be completely invalid.
Remote viewing extends beyond magic. True remote viewing, unlike crystal ball gazing or tealeaf reading, is strictly controlled. As explained earlier, in these experiments, a viewer attempts to draw/describe a randomly chosen target location or object while all known channels for receiving the information are blocked. There is a protocol for a remote viewing experiment, which as seen in the video, is strict and completely blind to those actually in the experiment, with people who are unrelated doing much of the background work. Using the standards applied to any other science, remote viewing experiments have statistical analysis of results in relation to chance (p-value), effect sizes, and randomness (Utts, 1995). Based on the size of the study, researchers determine the correct statistical value of if chance alone were responsible, how likely it would be to observe results as strong or stronger than the ones obtained. The smaller the answer to that question (the p-value) the more the researchers are willing to rule out chance and an explanation. In numerous remote-viewing experiments, small p-values are found, supporting that this phenomenon occurs separate from chance. With the application of these standard scientific procedures, and the results of the studies being statistically significant far beyond what could be expected by chance, it can be concluded that psychic functioning is well established (Utts, 1995). Far too often, people who question the existence of psi are questioning on the basis of their personal beliefs and paradigms rather than examining scientific data.
In 1994, the TV show “Put to the Test” famous remote viewer Joe McMoneagle flew to Houston, a city he had never visited to show his remote viewing abilities. Joe, a career army man, began working for the CIA’s “Stargate” project that was using remote viewers, operating under strict guidelines, to provide additional information to aid US intelligence operations. Joe helped the army locate hostages in Iran, named the city and described the apartment where an American General was being held hostage, and helped discover a traitor in South Africa who was feeding information to the Soviets (Weeks, 1995). This is an impressive resume, and possibly the most successful remote viewer on record. Many doubt these abilities but McMoneagle is able to replicate his abilities over 450 times both in and out of the CIA (Weeks, 1995). The TV show put to the test asked him to show his abilities on live TV in order to show the world the powers of remote viewing. In Houston, Joe was put in a small room and taken through a procedure has done many times before. In a windowless, sound proof room, McMoneagle quiets his mind in order to see a target that has been chosen by the role of the dice. Four possible targets were chosen by a movie location scout who specifically chose locations based on their similarity to each other and their distinction. Photographs were taken and placed in envelopes far from accessibility to Joe and those conducting the experiment. A random woman then rolled the dice to see which photo would be the target location, which was then given to another woman, whom Joe had never met, to go to. Joe was shown a picture of the woman who was at the target and asked to describe where the woman was. With a quiet mind, McMoneagle sketched where he saw the woman and described aspects of the location such as a natural river that had been improved by man and of a bridge with foot traffic (“An anomalous cognition,” 1994). The target was the ship channel in Houston and Joe’s drawings and descriptions are eerily clear to the target. He describes having traces of all five senses aiding him in his description, about 80% of what he says turns out to be correct (“An anomalous cognition,” 1994). This is a very good example of how remote viewing works.